Papacy. The Church was to be independent of Rome; but not independent absolutely. For a spiritual, he substituted a temporal head; and wished to confer on that temporal head-himself-all the ecclesiastical authority, which had been enjoyed by the spiritual. Cranmer was now Archbishop of Canterbury. His character has been differently described by those who have taken their views of it from different sides of the question. His greatest enemies can scarcely deny him the virtues of mildness, moderation, and patience, nor the praise of learning and candour.' His greatest admirers can hardly affirm, that he was free from weakness and timidity, and a too ready compliance with the whims and wishes of those in power. But he had a hard post to fill. Henry had thrown off the power of the Pope, and so had thrown himself into the party of the reformers; but he had no mind to throw off all the errors of Popery, and to go all lengths with the Reformation. Cranmer had often to steer his course warily, lest his bark should make shipwreck altogether; and over zeal for his cause might provoke the hostility of one whose word was law, and whose will would brook no restraint from an archbishop, when it had dethroned a Pope.

During Henry's reign several documents were put forth varying in their complexion, according as Cranmer had more or less influence with him. The Six Articles nearly swamped the Reformation, and endangered even the archbishop. The Bishops' Book, or the Institution of a Christian Man, was a confession of faith set forth, when Cranmer and Ridley were in the ascendant. But it was succeeded by the King's Book, the Necessary Doctrine, which was the King's modification of the Bishops' Book, in which Gardiner had greater influence, and which restored some of those doctrines of the Roman communion, which the Bishops' Book had discarded.2

1 His first reforming successor in the archiepiscopal see has thus described him : Ut theologiam a barbarie vindicaret, adjecit literas Græcas et Hebræas; quarum sane post susceptum doctoratus gradum constat eum perstudiosum fuisse. Quibus perceptis antiquissimos tam Græcos quam Latinos patres evolvit : concilia omnia et antiquitatem ad ipsa Apostolorum tempora investigavit; theologiam totam, detracta illa quam sophistæ obduxerunt vitiata cute, ad vivum resecavit : quam tamen non doctrina magis quam moribus et vita expressit. Mira enim temperantia, mira animi lenitate atque placabilitate fuit;

ut nulla injuria aut contume'ia ad iram aut vindictam provocari posset; inimicissi mosque, quorum vim ac potentiam etsi despexit ac leviter tulit, ab offensione tamen ad inimicitias deponendas atque gratiam ineundam sæpe humanitate duxit. Eam præterea constantiam, gravitatem ac moderationem præ se tulit, ut in omni varietate rebusque, sive secundis, sive adversis, nunquam turbari animum ex fronte vultuque colligeres.-Matt. Parker, De Antiq. Britann. Eccles. p. 496. Lond. 1729.

2 See Cardwell's Synodalia, p. 34, Note.

Cranmer was himself not as yet fully settled in his views. He had early split with the Papacy, and convinced himself of the need of reformation, and of the general defection from the faith of the Scriptures and the primitive Church. But he was some time before he gave up the doctrine of Transubstantiation and other opinions in which he had been educated.' The bishops and clergy in general were far less disposed to reformation, than the king or the archbishop. It was rather by an exercise of regal preroga tive than by the force of persuasion, that changes were effected, even to the extent which took place in Henry's reign. It was also not much to the taste of the clergy that they should be forced to pay the same obedience to a temporal, which they had hitherto paid to a spiritual head: especially when Henry seemed to claim, and Cranmer, at least for a time, to sanction spiritual obedience to such a temporal authority: and most of all when Henry had given. marked indications, that, instead of making lighter the yoke which the Pope had put upon them, his little finger would be thicker than the Pope's loins. But neither clergy nor people were allowed to speak louder than the king chose to suffer. Convocation, both in this reign and the next, had little weight, and was not often consulted.

However, in Henry's reign many important steps were taken. The Church was declared independent of Rome. The Bible was translated into English. So also were many portions of the Church Service. Negotiations were opened with the German Reformers, especially with Melancthon, whom Henry and Cranmer besought in vain to come over and help them. And in 1538, in consequence of conferences between Cranmer and the German. divines, a body of thirteen articles was drawn up, in great measure agreeing with the Confession of Augsburg.3

On the accession of Edward VI., who was himself a zealous partisan of the Reformation, greater changes were speedily made. In 1547 the first book of Homilies was put forth. In 1548 The Archbishop of Canterbury with other learned and discreet bishops

1 Ridley was converted from a belief in Transubstantiation to believe in the Spiritual Presence by reading Ratramn's Book, and he was the means of bringing over Cranmer, who in time brought Latimer to the same conviction. See Ridley's Life of Ridley, p. 192. The date assigned to Ridley's conviction is 1545. See also Soames' Hist. of Reformation, Vol. III. ch. II. p. 17.

6

2 Melancthon seems to have known Henry's character too well to wish to become his counsellor. See Laurence, Bampton Lectures, p. 198, Third Edition. London, 1838; and Dr. Cardwell's Preface to the Two Liturgies of King Edward VI. Oxf. 1838, p. iv. Note 6.

2 See Cranmer's Works, by Jenkyns, Vol. iv. p. 273.

and divines' were appointed by the king to draw an order of divine worship, having respect to the pure religion of Christ taught in the Scripture, and to the practice of the primitive Church.' This commission is said to have consisted of Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury; Day, Bishop of Chichester; Goodrich, Bishop of Ely; Skip, Bishop of Hereford; Holbeach, of Lincoln; Ridley, of Rochester; Thirlby, of Westminster; May, Dean of St. Paul's; Taylor, Dean of Lincoln; Haines, Dean of Exeter; Robertson, Archdeacon of Leicester: Redmayne, Master of Trinity College, Cambridge; Cox, almoner to the king, and dean of Westminster and Christ Church. These commissioners, or a portion of them,' drew up the first Service Book of Edward VI., which was approved by Convocation, and confirmed by both Houses of Parliament. The principal sources, from which it was derived, were the ancient offices of the Church of England, and with them very probably the Liturgy drawn up by Melancthon and Bucer, at the request of Herman, Archbishop of Cologne, for the use of his diocese, which had been principally derived from the ancient liturgy of Nuremberg.3

The same year, Cranmer translated a Catechism written by Justus Jonas, which he put forth with his own authority; and which is commonly called Cranmer's Catechism. The Calvinistic reformers of the continent made many objections to the Liturgy as drawn up in 1548: and many English divines entertained similar scruples. It is probable that the clergy at large were not desirous of further reformation; but the king and the archbishop were both anxious for a revision, which should do away with any appearance of giving sanction to Romish superstitions. Accordingly an order was given to prepare a new Service Book. The king and his council were most zealous in favour of the change, and it is even said that the king declared, in a spirit like his father's, that if the bishops would make the desired change, he would interpose his own supreme authority to enforce its acceptance.

1 See Strype's Cranmer, p. 193. Ridley's Life of Ridley, p. 221. Collyer's Ecel. Hist. Vol. II. p. 252, &c. Downe's Lives of the Compilers of the Liturgy, prefixed to Sparrow's Rationale. Soames' Hist. Ref. Vol. III. p. 253. The first Service Book was attributed by his contemporary Bale to Cranmer. On Cranmer's approbation of it, see Jenkyns' Cranmer, Vol. I. pp. LIII., LIV.

* Soames seems satisfied, that the

parties actually engaged were Cranmer, Ridley, Goodrich, Holbeach, May, Taylor, Haynes, and Cox. If,' he says, 'it be true that Dr. Redmayn did not cordially approve the new Liturgy, that circumistance is to be regretted, for the age could boast of few men more erudite and honest.' Vol. III. p. 256. This witness is true.

3 See Cardwell's Preface to the Two Liturgies of Edward VI., p. xiii., and the authorities there referred to.

The new Service Book was put forth in 1552, and, with few exceptions, although these few are very important, it is the same as that we now possess under the name of the Book of Common Prayer.

The convocation was not permitted to pass its judgment on it, because it would, in all probability, have thrown all possible difficulties in the way of its publication. It came forth with the authority of parliament; though the act, which enjoined its acceptance, declared that the objections to the former book were rather curious than reasonable.'

The same year saw the publication of the forty-two Articles of Religion.' They were framed by the archbishop at the king's command, and committed to certain bishops to be inspected and approved by them. They were then returned to the archbishop and amended by him; he then sent them to Sir William Cecil and Sir John Cheke, who agreed that the archbishop should offer them to the king; which accordingly he did. They were then communicated to some other divines, and returned once more to the archbishop. The archbishop made his last remarks upon them, and so returned them again in three days to the council, beseeching them to prevail with the king to give authority to the bishops, to cause their respective clergy to subscribe them."

It has been doubted whether these articles thus drawn up were ever sanctioned by convocation. Dr. Cardwell, in his Synodalia, has given good reason to think, that they received full synodical authority.

It has been shown by Archbishop Laurence and others, that the Lutheran Confessions of Faith, especially the Confession of

1 Strype's Cranmer, pp. 210, 266, 289. Ridley's Life of Ridley, p. 333. Collyer's Eccl. Hist. 11. 309. Soames, III. ch. VI. p. 592. The prelates themselves appear to have considered the existing Liturgy as sufficiently unexceptionable, for in the Act authorizing the new one, it was declared that the former book contained nothing but what was agreeable to the word of God, and the primitive Church; and that such doubts as had been raised in the use and exercise thereof, proceeded rather from the curiosity of the ministers and mistakers, than of any other worthy cause.' Soames, III. p. 595.

2 Wake's State of the Church, &c., P. 599 quoted by Cardwell, Synodalia, Vol. I. p. 3. See also Jenkyns' Cranmer, Vol. I. p. 357. It is asserted by Strype, in his Life of Cranmer, and repeated by

Gloucester Ridley, that of these Articles the Archbishop was the penner, or at least the great director, with the assistance, as is very probable, of Bishop Ridley.' Ridley's Life, p. 343.

Mr. Soames says, 'Of the Articles now framed Abp. Cranmer must be considered as the sole compiler. . . . It seems likely that he consulted his friend Ridley, and that he obtained from him many notes. It is however certain, that the Bishop of London was not actually concerned in preparing the Articles, as Cranmer, when examined at Oxford, took upon himself the whole responsibility of that work:' for which he quotes Foxe, 1704. Soames' Hist. Ref. III. p. 648.

3 Bampton Lectures, passim; especially p. 230.

Augsburg, were the chief sources to which Cranmer was indebted for the Articles of 1552. He did not servilely follow, but yet made copious use of them.

The chief assistant to Cranmer, both in this labour and in the translations and revisions of the Liturgy, was unquestionably his great friend and counsellor, Ridley. It is well known, that he had material influence in inducing the archbishop to renounce the doctrine of Transubstantiation and to embrace that of the Spiritual Presence and the Romanist party of the day asserted, that Cranmer derived all his learning from Ridley. However untrue this may be, it is pretty certain, that they always acted in concert. In the drawing up of the First Service Book, Ridley was one of the commissioners; and no doubt, next to Cranmer, had a principal hand in compiling and afterwards revising it. Some of the commissioners protested against the passing the Act for authorizing the first book, inasmuch as it went beyond their views of liturgical reform. But Ridley showed the greatest zeal to induce conformity both to it, and to the Second Service Book, which was far more extensively reformed. And indeed throughout, Cranmer and he appear to have walked in the same course, and acted on the same principles.

It is of consequence to remember these facts. For, if Cranmer and Ridley were the chief compilers both of the Prayer Book and of the Articles; although the Church is in no degree bound by their private opinions, yet, when there is a difficulty in understanding a clause either in the Articles or the Liturgy, which are the two standards of authority as regards the doctrines of the English Church, it cannot but be desirable to elucidate such difficulties by appealing to the writings, and otherwise expressed opinions of these two reformers. It is true, both Liturgy and Articles have been altered since their time. Yet by far the larger portion of both remains just as they left them. The convocation appears to have made little alteration in the Articles, and none in the Liturgy, in Edward's reign: for the Second Service Book was not submitted to it, and it has been even doubted whether the Articles were passed by it.

The event, which seemed to crush the Reformation in the bud, in fact gave it life. Neither clergy nor people appear to have been very hearty in its cause, when it came commended to them by the tyranny of Henry, or even by the somewhat arbitrary

1 Ridley's Life of Ridley, p. 162, referred to above.